The Great Debate Biochemist APRIL 2009

News

Letters to the Editor Evolution – the great debate

Dear Sir, pends upon the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions; University of Wisconsin historian Ron Numbers has observed: “I however, if this is the test, ID completely fails.”6 How much independ- suspect most people don’t understand what Intelligent Design is. I’ve ent thought does it take to decide that those two sentences should be talked to enough people who didn’t understand it to make me really joined with the conjunction “however”? (By the way, I did not testify suspicious, and there are even people who lecture about it and don’t that ID was based on an analogy; I never even used the word ‘analogy’. know what they’re talking about. I don’t define it; what I do is let the That’s just one of a number of the lawyers’ mischaracterizations of my advocates of Intelligent Design speak for themselves.”1 testimony copied into the judge’s opinion.) Downloaded from http://portlandpress.com/biochemist/article-pdf/31/2/55/4984/bio031020055.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021 It is unfortunate that Kevin Padian and Nick Matzke didn’t follow Although it’s understandable that Padian and Matzke wish that that good advice in their recent article in the Biochemical Journal the judge had comprehended and then agreed with their academic [reprinted in The Biochemist, vol. 31 (1)], Darwin, Dover, ‘Intelligent arguments (I wished the same for my testimony), in fact there is Design’ and textbooks. Rather than letting ID advocates speak for no evidence that the judge understood any of the expert academic themselves, they concocted their own notion: “... the whole point testimony in the court. Whenever his opinion touched on any expert of ID is to establish that miraculous supernatural intervention was testimony – be it scientific, philosophical or theological, either for the required in the history of life.... ID proponents attempt scientifically to defendants or for the plaintiffs – he simply copied the text from the demonstrate their proposal, i.e. repeated miraculous intervention in plaintiffs’ attorneys’ brief. (When discussing school board meetings or the history of life...”2 newspaper editorials, the judge used his own words.) As Padian and They don’t know what they’re talking about. The basic claim of Matzke rightly observed, my testimony on the biochemical complex- ID is simply that empirical evidence can lead one to a conclusion of ity of the flagellum “appeared to make the judge’s eyes glaze over.”2 design in Nature. It says nothing about “repeated miraculous inter- There is no reason to think that this former head of the Pennsylvania vention.” I made this quite clear in my most recent book, The Edge of Liquor Control Board grasped the distinction between flagellin and Evolution, in a section entitled ‘No Interference’: “[T]he assumption prothrombin, gene duplication and point mutation, Thomas Aquinas that design unavoidably requires ‘interference’ rests mostly on a and David Hume, or random mutation and common descent. lack of imagination. There’s no reason that the extended fine-tuning I realize that the concept of Intelligent Design strikes many view I am presenting here necessarily requires active meddling with scientists as strange. But whenever the topic is a fundamental one, Nature any more than the fine‑tuning of theistic evolution does.”3 such as how the universe or life arose, some possibilities are bound to (Theistic evolution seems to be what Padian and Matzke meant by strike us as strange. For example, the bioinformatician Eugene Koonin their phrase “your father’s ‘ID’”2. Theistic evolution is also officially recently proposed that the origin of life is not the result of some tolerated as a scientifically compatible viewpoint by no less than the law-like process, but is simply a tremendously unlikely accident, that National Academy of Sciences4.) It is true that many ID proponents nonetheless is destined to occur repeatedly in an infinite universe.7 do not think, as I do, that complete common ancestry is correct, and Whether one believes life had a law-like beginning or not, it is clear do think, as I don’t, that miraculous interventions have taken place. that Koonin’s strange-sounding proposal is possible, and its discussion Yet they understand, as Padian and Matzke apparently do not, that should not be prohibited. The same goes for the strange-sounding the basic argument for design does not reach that far – design focuses proposal of Intelligent Design. on the endpoint, not the process. Arguments about process require further evidence, beyond that for the bare conclusion of design. That Michael J. Behe should not be a difficult point to grasp. Lehigh University I sympathize with Padian and Matzke – if the judge at the Dover trial had ruled for my side, I probably would try to puff up his stature, too. But he didn’t, so I looked more closely at his ruling. They References call him an “independent thinker ... who hewed to no party line.”2 1. www.news.wisc.edu/16176 Well, he must be the only independent thinker who copied his inde- 2. Padian, K. and Matzke, N. (2009) Biochem. J. 417, 29–42 pendent thoughts directly from someone else’s party-line document. 3. Behe, M.J. (2007) in The Edge of Evolution: the Search for the A month before the judge issued his opinion, the plaintiffs’ attorneys Limits of Darwinism, p. 231, Free Press, New York submitted to him a 161-page brief, detailing exactly how they wished 4. National Academy of Sciences (1999) Science and Creationism: a him to rule. Here’s a brief excerpt from the lawyer’s document: View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd edn, p. 7, National “Professor Behe testified that the strength of an analogy depends on Academy Press, Washington, DC the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions. If this is 5. www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/04cv2688-334.pdf, p. 42 the test, Intelligent Design completely fails.”5 And here’s the ‘judge’s’ 6. www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf, p. 80 decision: “Professor Behe testified that the strength of the analogy de- 7. Koonin, E.V. (2007) Biol. Direct 2,15

The authors reply: Behe’s tactically vague position be preferred over the actual views of Michael Behe’s reply shows why ID loses in court and in the academic the main body of the movement? community: its advocates’ responses to criticism are incoherent and Continuing the theme of incoherence, Behe claims the science was self-contradictory. We know exactly what we’re talking about. Our too tough for the Federal Court to handle, but also thinks that exactly review lets the advocates of ID speak for themselves; that’s why we the same material (in Pandas) is perfectly appropriate for 14-year‑olds quoted them so extensively. And Behe’s views represent only one voice in introductory biology classes. Behe’s other cheap shots also fail: Judge in that community, which we fairly characterized. Jones had a fine liberal arts education and could understand all the Behe cites the advice of Ronald Numbers, the world’s leading scientific complexities presented by the plaintiffs’ witnesses. Too bad if historian of creationism, to the effect that we should pay attention to Behe couldn’t make his thoughts understandable, but we rather think what ID advocates say. Good advice, but that’s just what the plaintiffs’ he did. Behe complains that Jones copied from the plaintiffs’ brief, but team did in the Kitzmiller case. Publications of every major ID fails to inform readers that this is utterly standard practice. Both sides advocate and institution were introduced into the evidence, and they were required to submit such briefs, which are even entitled “Proposed Downloaded from http://portlandpress.com/biochemist/article-pdf/31/2/55/4984/bio031020055.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021 showed that ID is primarily about conservative Christian apologetics: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”, and which the parties write overturning methodological naturalism so that the supernatural (i.e. in the voice of the Court precisely so that the Court may adopt those miracles) can be introduced into science, proving the existence of God, Findings with which it agrees4. Behe’s real problem is that, on cross- and thus winning the culture war. The ‘Wedge Strategy’1 of Behe’s own examination, his testimony was shown to be full of the same kinds of Discovery Institute makes it plain: its “Governing Goals” were “To self-contradictions and unsupported assertions we see in his letter. An defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and example is Behe’s criticism that the vast literature on evolutionary political legacies” and “To replace materialistic explanations with the immunology is not detailed enough, while he offers no details of his theistic understanding that Nature and human beings are created by own explanation for the immune system, apart from “ID did it”5. God.” Behe himself is explicitly cited among the leading edge of ‘The Koonin’s unusual article was published in an online journal Wedge’. If all of this is horrible misrepresentation of what Behe thinks he edits, in which all reviewed articles are accepted. The scientific is the ‘true’ ID concept, Behe could leave Discovery and denounce reviews are also public and quite negative, pointing out problems those who do apologetics and culture warring under the ID banner, similar to those that afflict the ID argument; one of us added criticisms and also state that public schools should teach accepted basic science, to the online comments section in 20076. Fringe views are entitled not fringe views like ID. But he hasn’t. to whatever discussion they can earn in the scientific community; Furthermore, speaking of the history of creationism, the plaintiffs’ however, Behe and the ID movement want more. Having had their team discovered the creationist ancestry of Of Pandas and People, an fringe views discussed and rejected by the scientific community, they utterly damning point Behe doesn’t even mention. Pandas denies com- want the government to force them into introductory biology classes mon ancestry within animals and even hominids, and treats young- anyway. This is the path taken by frauds and fundamentalists, not earth creationism as reasonable. These assertions require supernatural scientific revolutionaries. intervention2. Behe himself “critically reviewed”, endorsed in print and even secretly co‑authored part of the second edition, and defended the Nick Matzke book in court. Which Behe are we supposed to believe? Kevin Padian Similarly, regarding miracles, Behe’s new book argues at length Department of Integrative Biology that known natural processes can’t produce complex adaptations, and University of California, Berkeley concludes that malaria was “intentionally designed” by God. He even helpfully provides a theodicy for readers who might be concerned by this position. None of this makes sense without miracles. Behe’s References “non-miraculous” alternative is apparently the bizarre idea that malaria 1. www.scienceblogs.com/gregladen/wedge.pdf and every other biological complexity was encoded into the Big Bang, 2. Matzke, N.J. (2009) in But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question in but he does not explain how thousands of genes could be so encoded, the Creation/Evolution Controversy, Updated Edition (Ruse, M. and or how this information could be transferred to Earth billions of years Pennock, R.T., eds). pp. 377–413, Prometheus Books, Amherst later (and remember, he excludes mutation/selection as the originator 3. Scott, E.C. and Matzke, N.J. (2007) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 of complex information). (Suppl. 1), 8669–8676 As if this weren’t enough, Behe admits in his letter that many ID 4. www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-11-23_post-trial_FoF advocates deny common ancestry and invoke miracles! The reality is 5. Bottaro, A., Inlay, M.A. and Matzke, N.J. (2006) Nat. Immunol. 7, that it’s not “many”, but virtually every ID leader except (lately) Behe3, 433–435 but, regardless, if we’re supposed to listen to ID advocates, why should 6. www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21/comments

Dear Sir, Th e excellent articles on Darwin’s relevance to modern biochemistry in the last issue of Th e Biochemist made me wonder about the widespread use of an elderly bearded Darwin image. I believe that the photograph in question dates from about 1874, 15 years aft er publication of Th e Origin of Species and nearly 40 years aft er his return from the 5-year Beagle voyage, aged only 27. Th e colour portrait by George Richmond dates from 1840, when Darwin was 31, not long aft er he drew the famous tree of life. Th us this early picture is more valid in representing Darwin the scientist. Th e general media oft en fall into this ‘Einstein Trap’ (Albert was 26, and probably without a grey hair, when he fi rst described Special Relativity), but scientists should resist. In work with Downloaded from http://portlandpress.com/biochemist/article-pdf/31/2/55/4984/bio031020055.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021 schoolchildren, I fi nd they oft en copy the Old Einstein model when they draw scientists, so it’s up to us when presenting science. Make the eff ort to get the pictures of folk taken at the age when they did the work. I think we’ll be pleasantly surprised and it might improve our public image.

Jeremy H. Lakey, Professor of Structural Biochemistry, The Richmond portrait The University of Newcastle